Saturday, March 11, 2006

Would you be interested in supporting a strategy for winning the War in Iraq? I'm not asking you to donate your first-born or your financial future--I have those already-- all I'm asking is for you to pledge your few remaining brain cells to believing in me and my strategy! I'd really appreciate your support!

"....The number you have reached is unavailable...please try again...."

George Bush will begin a series of speeches next week explaining to the American public the Administration’s strategy for winning the war in Iraq.

Apparently the White House is counting on the previously demonstrated dimwittery of the American public to somehow boost support for Bush and the Republicans in light of the latest damning polls that the President regularly insists are the products of special-interest focus groups.

If I remember correctly the original strategy for winning the war in Iraq was to cruise to Baghdad in some pimped-out wheels, hook-up the "bra’s" with some sweet deals on the down-low and then alternately chill, par-tay and rake in some righteous bread.

When that didn’t work the strategy became popping caps in the local buzz-kills or just fuckin’ wit’ em, old-school an' fraternity-style!

When that strategy delivered results that "no-one could have predicted", the "situation on the ground" demanded a new strategy--the National Strategy for Victory in Iraq published and speechified in November 2005 which explained how well the previous strategies had worked out and how together they would work even better by being written-down retroactively.

However, that was then and this is now.

As General Pace said just the other day things in Iraq are "going pretty well" (at least as well as Carrie’s prom) and he should know because he’s a fucking General, goddammit! BUT on the other hand Pace's boss Donald Rumsfeld said that he military's information offices, operating mostly eight hours a day, five or six days a week weren't keeping up with the terrorists who get their messages out to the media 24 hours a day, seven days a week, resulting in a "dangerous deficiency" for the US.

So with more dead Iraqis and terrorists than dead Americans, but with harder-working live Iraqi terrorist bloggers journalists and pundits than live American bloggers, journalists and pundits the White House is responding with with a new strategy.

And what is this new strategy?Just like the President, it’s very simple:

The strategy is to explain that there IS A STRATEGY, which is of course to explain that there is a strategy, which is the strategy!. And the strategy is to win! Got that? Good! Now back to the polls and give the the right answers this time! If you don't, we'll lose this war and it will be all yourfault!

And don't think you''l be able to come crying back to me when some freedom-hating islamiac flies a nuclear bomb into your trailer-home and then stands by whilst liberals force your daughter to have an abortion and bans Christmas! You've been warned!

Wednesday, March 08, 2006

This week’s Texas GOP national congressional nomination race was the first in over 20 years in which observers thought Tom Delay might face some competition on account of being indicted on some very serious charges.

Throughout, Delay expressed complete confidence in retaining his position and dadgammit, he won!Ever gracious in victory Delay said in a statement:

"Not only did they [the voters] reject the politics of personal destruction, but they strongly rejected the candidates who used those Democrat tactics as their platform."

Apparently advisers scratched-out "Now kneeeeeell before ZOD!" at the last minute.

Anyhoo, the big story isn’t that Texan Republicans exhibited classic "battered wife syndrome" courtesy of "The Hammer"; oh no, not at all!

The big story is buried in this little tidbit concerning the race between fellow Democrats Henry Cuellar and Ciro Rodriguez in the one and only Texas district without a Republican challenger.

As the AP casually mentions it:

With about 69 percent of precincts reporting, Cuellar had 16,705 votes, or 49 percent, compared with Rodriguez, who had 15,408 votes, or 45 percent. It was unclear when the race would be decided. The tabulation of early votes in a key county was delayed because of voting-machine software problems, election officials said.

Clearly Democrats can't run their own elections properly (never mind that the entire process from soup to nuts is run and owned by the Republicans)

The Republican run-off apparently went without a hitch.

In 2000 it was Florida that determined the Presidential election.In 2004 it was Ohio.In 2008 ? Take a guess!

Monday, March 06, 2006

Photo: Charles Dharapal-AP Bush having a go at cricket on his recent India/Pakistan trip. Very sensibly he's being tossed tennis balls, not a cricket ball (which is the same weight as a regulation baseball--5-1/2 oz--but something like twice as hard). He's off the crease (meaning he's not protecing the wicket behind him) which is understandable.Interestingly the wicket has no "bails"--horizontal rods that fit atop and across the wicket that fly off when the wicket is hit ( making it plain that the batsman has been bowled out). No doubt Bush was briefed on the game of cricket for his trip and it may have gone something like this:

Cricket Explained

There are of course two sides.

The game begins with one side being in, but that doesn’t mean the other side is out.

The players who are in are bowled six balls at a time, which is called an over.

When the over is over, one of the players on the side that is in may now be out.So the player who is out goes in because he’s out whilst another player from the side that’s in goes out because he’s now in.

If both players who are in go out, then they both go in whilst two more players from the side that’s in go out to be in until they are out and so on.

When the side that was in are all out, the side that wasn’t in (but wasn't out of course) goes out and tries to stay in whilst the side that was in but is now out comes out and tries to get the side that is now in, out.

Of course if the side that is in still has players who are in when the overs are over, those players are declared not out, but they can’t stay in because the other side has to go out because they are in and the side that was in, even though they aren’t out, are out and have to come in.

So that side then comes in and the other side goes out because they are now in.

Then it’s time for tea so both sides, whether in or out or somewhere in-between, come in before they go out again.

The game isn’t over until both sides have been in and out and all the overs are over, unless one side, in or out, declares that the game is over because there aren’t enough overs left to go out and stay in.

The winner is often the side that has been in more than out with more not-outs when the overs are over, or even when the overs aren’t over but the game is.